DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. (US 2014/0160280) in view of Slutzky et al. (US 2023/0115083).
Re claims 1 and 10:
Rodriguez et al. teaches (para 0033 with emboldening by examiner):
“[0033] As seen in FIG. 5, the controller 40 can transmit the camera signals to the dedicated, standalone mobile software application 92 operating on the user's mobile computing device 92 such that the images of the surrounding area of the EVCS 10 can be viewed by the user on the mobile computing device 90. Other outputs can include the mobile app 92 receiving from the controller 40 the status of vehicle charging, and displaying the status of vehicle charging to the user in a progress field/button 96 (e.g., 80% complete in FIG. 5). As another option, the mobile app 92 can receive from the controller 40 and provide to the user a notification indicating completion of vehicle charging. Notification of completion of vehicle charging can be made, for example, by way of a push notification, email, text message, or any other logically applicable form of electronic communication, and can optionally be displayed within the progress field 96. The controller 40 may also be operable to output to the user via the app 92 a notification indicating that the EVCS 10 has been damaged or vandalized. In this regard, the controller 40 can be configured to automatically output to a police department or an independent security company a notification of such vandalism/damage to the EVCS 10. To protect the digital cameras 36A-D from vandalism, optional configurations of the EVCS monitoring system 30 can automatically activate the alarm mechanism 42, for example, when a person is detected near the EVCS 10 and one of the cameras 36A-D unexpectedly stops capturing image signals.”
PNG
media_image1.png
538
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rodriguez further teaches (para 0005):
“[0005] Aspects of the present disclosure are directed to systems, methods and devices for monitoring an EVCS, its surrounding areas, and/or the vehicle being charged by the EVCS. Some implementations allow the owner of the vehicle and/or the operator of the charging facility to control an EVCS remotely. A potential benefit to vehicle owners is the ability to remotely monitor the status of their vehicle and its charge, for example, using a dedicated software application on his/her smartphone, tablet, or computer. A software application can enable the owner to: (a) view the electric vehicle and its surrounding areas; (b) change the field of view of one or more local security cameras (e.g., change the camera's direction and/or the focal length to zoom in or out); (c) monitor the status of vehicle charging; (d) receive alarms/notifications indicating completion of vehicle charging; and/or (e) enable/disable the charging process remotely. A potential benefit to facility operators is the ability to remotely monitor their filling station, an individual EVCS and its surrounding areas, as well as people and vehicles at the filling station. The facility owner/operator can be provided with a software application which allows them to: (a) detect a vehicle as it is parking at and/or using an EVCS (e.g., a picture of the license plate may be taken and stored for security purposes); (b) detect if someone is approaching/at an EVCS and record their actions; (c) receive alarms/notifications indicating vandalism or damage to the EVCS; (d) notify the police or independent security company; (e) change the field of view of one or more of the security cameras; (f) enable/disable the charging process remotely; and/or (g) identify stolen vehicles.”
Thus, a charging system provides power to a vehicle at the same time that a monitoring system monitors the area around a vehicle.
Crucially as claimed, the results of the monitoring are transmitted through a charge-point protocol (i.e. through the user’s charging app) to their device.
Lacking in Rodriguez et al. is a teaching that the charging device is a smart pole.
Slutzky et al. teaches smart pole that performs both charging and surveillance. See for instance para 0016.
In view of the teachings of Slutzky et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use Rodriguez et al.’s monitoring and charging system that uses a user’s charging app in the context of a smart pole for the sake of enabling smart monitoring in different charging configurations.
The examiner notes that Rodriguez et al.’s system generally meets the claimed invention except for the shape and structure of a pole. However, a smart pole that does both charging and surveillance was known at the time of the invention. Performing notifications and displaying the vehicle surrounds through the app is obvious so that a user who has stepped away from their vehicle can be updated.
Re claims 2-9 and 11-12:
Most of these limitations follow from the above.
The specific communication protocols and emergency levels are a matter of obvious design variation. What matters is not the protocol so much as the function and Rodriguez clearly has some threshold that would trigger the warnings the system provides.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee can be reached at (571)272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL A HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights